Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 02.07.2026 Pronounced on : 23.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.4599 and 4640 of 2026 and WP.Crl.Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Crl.OP.No.6226 of 2026 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamilnadu, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. (Cr.No. 1 of 2026) 2. Bala Venkatesh … Respondents 1/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. (Cr.No.2 of 2026) 2. B.Somasundaram … Respondents WP(Crl).No.1553 of 2025 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. (Cr.No.110 of 2024) 2. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 4. Balavenkatesh … Respondents 2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 WP(Crl).No.1565 of 2025 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. (Cr.No.200 of 2024) 2. The Inspector of Police,

D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 4. B.Somasundaram … Respondents Prayer in Crl.OP.No.6226 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.1 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. Prayer in Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Prayer in WP.No.1553 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to re-investigate the complaint dated 23.05.2024 registered as FIR No.110 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.2 filed by me against the respondent No.4 which was subsequently closed as “ Mistake of Facts and Mistake of Law” by the respondent No.1 and pass further orders.

Prayer in WP.No.1565 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 or any other independent agency to re-investigate the complaint dated 11.09.2024 registered as Cr.No.200 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.2 filed by me against the respondent No.4 which was subsequently closed as “ Mistake of Facts by the respondent No.1 and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar (in both Crl.Ops and WP(Crl)) For Respondents : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, for R1 in Crl.OP.No.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and for R1 to R3 in WP (Crl) Nos. 1553 and 1565 of 2025 Mr.Rajarajan for R2 in Crl.OP.6226 of 2026 and for R4 in WP(Crl).1553 of 2025 Mr.V.Karthick, Senior Counsel, for Mr.A.Sathasivam, for R2 in Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 and for R4 in WP.No.1565 of 2025 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 COMMON ORDER Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Reports registered against the petitioner in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct a re-investigation into the FIRs registered in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 and 11.09.2024 respectively on the file of the second respondent, which were subsequently closed as “ Mistake of fact” . 3. However, the allegations in all the petitions are substantially identical and the accused/petitioner is common in all the cases. Though the complainants are different persons in Cr.No.1 and 2 of 2026, the allegations arise out of the same series of transactions. Hence, all the petitions are disposed of by this common order. 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 4. Initially, a complaint was received and registered in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the first respondent CBCID and the case was re-registered as Crime No.1 of 2026. Similarly, upon receipt of another complaint, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore, registered Crime No.33 of 2025. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the first respondent CBCID and the case was re-registered as Crime No.2 of 2026. Crime No.1 of 2026

5. The prosecution case is that the complainant was proprietor of Kaja Laskshmi Jewellers and he had business dealings with the accused/petitioner who is then Inspector of Police, Selvapuram Police Station and also he was running gold chit schemes. According to the complainant, he became entitled to approximately 9.5 kilograms of gold together with an additional 1.677 kilograms of gold as per the gold chit. However, the accused failed to return the said gold. 6. The complainant had earlier lodged a complaint on 25.04.2024, which was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, D2 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. However, no effective action was taken. Instead, a case came to be registered in Crime No.110 of 2024 as against the complainant/Bala Venkatesh by misusing the official position of accused as an Inspector of Police. 7. Thereafter, on 24.05.2024, the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, accompanied by about ten police personnel and two identified civilians, allegedly entered the complainant's residence without notice or authority. They seized a sum of Rs.1,95,500/- in cash and four gold ornaments weighing about 157 grams.

8. Thereafter, the complainant and his daughter were taken to his jewellery shop, where approximately 3.6 kilograms of gold ornaments, along with cheque books, were seized. The complainant was thereafter illegally detained at the police station. During his detention, he was allegedly threatened with arrest and taken to the Government Hospital for medical examination. 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 9. According to the complainant, the Inspector of Police suggested that the dispute with the accused could be settled by executing documents relating to his immovable property. The complainant owned about 50 acres of agricultural land at Mallakuzhi Thazhavadi Village, Erode District, which had been mortgaged with Axis Bank for a sum of Rs.1 crore. 10. The Inspector allegedly calculated the value of the seized gold and cash and informed the complainant that, even after adjustment, he was liable to return 3.642 kilograms of gold together with interest. 11. It is further alleged that, under the coercion of the accused/Inspector of Police, the complainant was compelled to execute an agreement for sale in favour of the accused after the latter cleared the bank mortgage. The complainant was also forced to sign blank stamp papers, other documents prepared at the police station and several signed cheques as security. 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 12. The property stands jointly in the names of the complainant and his wife. Consequently, another agreement was also prepared and their signatures were obtained under coercion. In order to secure release of the original title deeds from the bank, the accused paid a sum of Rs.1,06,92,976.60 towards discharge of the mortgage loan. According to the complainant, the market value of the property exceeds Rs.15 crores. Crime No.2 of 2026 13. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was a Builder and Developer by profession. While being so, on 12.09.2024, seven persons, who were later identified as police officials, forcibly entered into the complainant's residence. Five of them were in police uniform while two were in civil dress. They entered the premises without prior notice or permission. 14. The complainant was forcibly taken to the police station and questioned regarding the accused/petitioner. During the enquiry, he stated that the accused was a stranger to him and that he had no acquaintance or business relationship with him. 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

15. The Inspector of Police, one Selvakumar, informed the complainant that the accused had alleged that the complainant had received 1,250 grams of gold in the year 2017 and directed him to return the same to the accused/petitioner. It was further stated that he would be released only upon returning the gold. 16. Although the complainant denied having received any gold from the accused/petitioner, the Inspector allegedly refused to accept his explanation and threatened him with arrest unless he returns 1,250 grams of gold. 17. The complainant was allegedly wrongfully confined at the police station till about 3.00 p.m. without food and his regular medicines for his heart ailment. Being under severe coercion and apprehending arrest, he arranged 1,200 grams of gold through his friend and handed it over to the accused. No acknowledgment was issued for the same, and he was released only at about 4.00 p.m. 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 18. The complainant further alleged that the accused/petitioner , in collusion with the police officials, made false allegations, threatened him with arrest and extorted 1,200 grams of gold. WP (Crl.) No.1553 of 2025

19. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the business of selling gold jewellery and wholesale trading in pure gold. The fourth respondent requested him to provide 10 kilograms of gold, assuring that double the quantity would be returned within three years for business purposes. 20. Believing the said representation, the petitioner handed over 7,400 grams of gold on 14.08.2021 at the office of the fourth respondent in the presence of his staff members, R. Visalatchi and R. Sudha. 21. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent was not operating any gold chain manufacturing unit under the name "BV Chains" as represented. 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 22. Despite repeated demands, the fourth respondent failed to return the gold. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.110 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 23. During the course of investigation, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.05.2024, followed by an agreement for sale. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,06,92,907/- through cheques dated 02.09.2024 and 09.09.2024 for discharge of the mortgage loan over the property. WP (Crl.) No.1565 of 2025

24. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the business of selling gold jewellery and wholesale trading in pure gold. According to him, he entrusted 1.250 kilograms of pure gold to the fourth respondent upon the latter's assurance that he would execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner as security. However, the promise was never fulfilled. 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 25. Despite repeated demands, the fourth respondent failed to return the gold. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.200 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. 26. On 12.09.2024, the petitioner was summoned for enquiry before the second respondent police. During the enquiry, negotiations took place, pursuant to which the fourth respondent agreed to return one kilogram of gold immediately and the balance at a later stage. 27. The fourth respondents in WP (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 had earlier filed W.P. Nos.33515 and 32620 of 2024 seeking transfer of investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025 holding that no grounds existed for transfer of investigation. 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

28. Subsequently, the fourth respondents filed W.P. Nos.12318 and 12322 of 2025, representing that the investigations were pending on the file of the first respondent, and sought a direction for early completion of investigation. By order dated 04.04.2025, this Court directed the first respondent to complete the investigation under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police. 29.It is alleged that the complainants had incorrectly stated that the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent, whereas they were actually pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Therefore, the accused filed W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025 seeking recall of the said order. 30. In the recall petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the investigations had already been transferred to the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore City, and that the investigations had substantially been completed. Consequently, the recall petitions were dismissed on 31.07.2025. 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 31. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of the dismissal of the recall petitions, the complainants, in collusion with certain police officials, ensured that Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 were closed as "mistake of fact". Hence, the present Writ Petitions.

32. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner had been acquainted with the fourth respondents, namely, Balavenkatesh and B. Somasundaram, for several years. He further submits that the complainant, Balavenkatesh, in Crime No.1 of 2026, along with his wife, represented that they were operating a new gold chain manufacturing unit under the name "BV Chains" and requested the petitioner/accused to provide 10 kilograms of gold, assuring that they would return double the quantity within a period of three years. Believing the said representation, the petitioner/accused handed over 7,400 grams of gold to the complainant on 14.08.2021 in the presence of witnesses. 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 33. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused came to know that the complainant was not operating any gold chain manufacturing unit in the name of "BV Chains". Despite repeated demands for the return of the gold, the fourth respondent failed to return the same. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which came to be registered as Crime No.110 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore.

34. During the course of investigation, the parties entered into an amicable settlement by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.05.2024, followed by an Agreement for Sale. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner/accused paid a sum of Rs.1,06,93,907/- towards discharge of the mortgage created by the complainant over the property with Axis Bank. 35. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner/accused also lodged another complaint against B. Somasundaram before the very same police station, namely, the 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. On receipt of the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.200 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) of the IPC. 36. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that both the complainants filed Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.33515 and 32620 of 2024 seeking transfer of the investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By a common order dated 25.03.2025, this Court dismissed both the writ petitions. 37. Thereafter, the complainants once again filed W.P.

Nos.12318 and 12322 of 2025 by falsely representing that both the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent and sought a direction for completion of the investigation. By order dated 04.04.2025, this Court directed the first respondent to complete the investigation under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police. 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 38. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the complainants had wrongly stated that both the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent, whereas they were actually pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Consequently, the petitioner/accused filed W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025 seeking recall of the said order. 39. In the said recall petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, had already transferred the investigation in both the cases to the Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Coimbatore City, and that the investigation had been completed and the final reports were ready to be filed. However, by order dated 31.07.2025, this Court dismissed the recall petitions. 40. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the recall petitions, both the complainants, in collusion with certain police officials, allegedly ensured that the FIRs in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 were closed as "Mistake of Fact." 18/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 41. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the orders dismissing the recall petitions were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the challenge and confirmed the orders passed by this Court in W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025. 42. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the first respondent ultimately filed closure reports in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 classifying both the cases as "Mistake of Fact." Hence, he prays that all the Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions be allowed. 43. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the first respondent police in Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025, has filed separate counter affidavits. He reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the FIRs cannot be quashed at the preliminary stage of investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed the petitions. 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

44. Mr. Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in Crl.O.P. No.6226 of 2026 and the fourth respondent in W.P. (Crl.) No.1553 of 2025, and Mr. V. Karthick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A. Sathasivam, learned counsel for the second respondent in Crl.O.P. No.6296 of 2026 and the fourth respondent in W.P. (Crl.) No.1565 of 2025, reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed the petitions. 45. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 46. A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent in Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026, as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, reveals that the accused in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 had initially lodged complaints against the present complainants. The said complaints were registered as Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Upon completion of the investigation, both the FIRs were closed as 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 "Mistake of Fact." Aggrieved by the closure of the said FIRs, the accused filed the present Writ Petitions seeking re-investigation into both the cases.

47. During the investigation of the complaints lodged by the present complainants, the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, registered FIRs in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2025 against the accused herein. Subsequently, pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, both the FIRs were transferred to the file of the first respondent/CBCID and re-registered as Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026. 48. The first respondent has further stated that, during the investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024, none of the witnesses supported the allegations made by the accused. There was neither oral nor documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the complainants. Consequently, both the FIRs were closed as "Mistake of Fact." 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 49. It is further stated that the complaint in Crime No.200 of 2024 was initially lodged by the accused against one K. Somasundaram @ Somu, who had stood as a surety and had passed away in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused lodged a false complaint against the present complainant, which ultimately resulted in the registration of Crime No.2 of 2026. It is further alleged that, under coercion, the accused obtained 1,200 grams of gold from the complainant by misusing his official position as an Inspector of Police.

50. Therefore, according to the first respondent, there are absolutely no grounds to order re-investigation into Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024, which have already been closed as "Mistake of Fact." Hence, this Court finds no reason to direct a re-investigation into the said crimes. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate protest petitions challenging the closure reports, in the manner known to law, if so advised. 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 51. It is further stated that, in the recall petitions filed by the accused in W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025, it was specifically brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, had transferred the investigation in both the cases to CCB-I, Coimbatore City, on 10.06.2025. After completion of the investigation, both the FIRs were closed as "Mistake of Fact", and RCS Notices Nos.336 and 337 of 2025 were served on the petitioner. In fact, the RCS proceedings are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, and the petitioner has been called upon to file his objections. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

52. It is further submitted that, on receipt of the complaints lodged by the complainants, FIRs in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2025 were registered and, thereafter, transferred to the file of the first respondent/CBCID. On receipt of the records, the first respondent re-registered the cases as Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026, and both the FIRs are presently under investigation. 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 53. A perusal of the allegations contained in the FIRs discloses serious accusations against the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused had initially lodged false complaints against the complainants, which, upon detailed investigation, were closed as "Mistake of Fact." It is further alleged that the accused, by coercion, obtained gold from both the complainants and, in order to usurp their properties, compelled them to execute a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreements for Sale. It is also alleged that the accused obtained their signatures on blank papers, stamp papers and signed cheques.

54. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 56. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; .............. xii) The first information report is not an 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; ............. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......” 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

57. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Reports. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026, respectively, and file the final reports before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 58. In the result: (i) Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed; and (ii) W.P. (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Vv 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 To 1. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. 2. Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 4. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court 29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP.Crl.No.1553 and 1565 of 2025 23.07.2026 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 02.07.2026 Pronounced on : 23.07.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and Crl.MP.Nos.4599 and 4640 of 2026 and WP.Crl.Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Crl.OP.No.6226 of 2026 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamilnadu, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. (Cr.No. 1 of 2026) 2. Bala Venkatesh … Respondents 1/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. (Cr.No.2 of 2026) 2. B.Somasundaram … Respondents WP(Crl).No.1553 of 2025 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. (Cr.No.110 of 2024) 2. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 4. Balavenkatesh … Respondents 2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 WP(Crl).No.1565 of 2025 C.R.Muthukumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. (Cr.No.200 of 2024) 2. The Inspector of Police,

D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 4. B.Somasundaram … Respondents Prayer in Crl.OP.No.6226 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.1 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. Prayer in Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and quash the FIR in Cr.No.2 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Prayer in WP.No.1553 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to re-investigate the complaint dated 23.05.2024 registered as FIR No.110 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.2 filed by me against the respondent No.4 which was subsequently closed as “ Mistake of Facts and Mistake of Law” by the respondent No.1 and pass further orders.

Prayer in WP.No.1565 of 2025: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 or any other independent agency to re-investigate the complaint dated 11.09.2024 registered as Cr.No.200 of 2024 on the file of the respondent No.2 filed by me against the respondent No.4 which was subsequently closed as “ Mistake of Facts by the respondent No.1 and pass further orders. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar,Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Ashwin Kumar (in both Crl.Ops and WP(Crl)) For Respondents : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, for R1 in Crl.OP.No.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and for R1 to R3 in WP (Crl) Nos. 1553 and 1565 of 2025 Mr.Rajarajan for R2 in Crl.OP.6226 of 2026 and for R4 in WP(Crl).1553 of 2025 Mr.V.Karthick, Senior Counsel, for Mr.A.Sathasivam, for R2 in Crl.OP.No.6296 of 2026 and for R4 in WP.No.1565 of 2025 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 COMMON ORDER Both the Criminal Original Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the First Information Reports registered against the petitioner in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 on the file of the first respondent.

2. Both the Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct a re-investigation into the FIRs registered in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 dated 23.05.2024 and 11.09.2024 respectively on the file of the second respondent, which were subsequently closed as “ Mistake of fact” . 3. However, the allegations in all the petitions are substantially identical and the accused/petitioner is common in all the cases. Though the complainants are different persons in Cr.No.1 and 2 of 2026, the allegations arise out of the same series of transactions. Hence, all the petitions are disposed of by this common order. 5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 4. Initially, a complaint was received and registered in Crime No.32 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore. Subsequently, the investigation was transferred to the first respondent CBCID and the case was re-registered as Crime No.1 of 2026. Similarly, upon receipt of another complaint, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore, registered Crime No.33 of 2025. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to the first respondent CBCID and the case was re-registered as Crime No.2 of 2026. Crime No.1 of 2026

5. The prosecution case is that the complainant was proprietor of Kaja Laskshmi Jewellers and he had business dealings with the accused/petitioner who is then Inspector of Police, Selvapuram Police Station and also he was running gold chit schemes. According to the complainant, he became entitled to approximately 9.5 kilograms of gold together with an additional 1.677 kilograms of gold as per the gold chit. However, the accused failed to return the said gold. 6. The complainant had earlier lodged a complaint on 25.04.2024, which was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, D2 6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. However, no effective action was taken. Instead, a case came to be registered in Crime No.110 of 2024 as against the complainant/Bala Venkatesh by misusing the official position of accused as an Inspector of Police. 7. Thereafter, on 24.05.2024, the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, accompanied by about ten police personnel and two identified civilians, allegedly entered the complainant's residence without notice or authority. They seized a sum of Rs.1,95,500/- in cash and four gold ornaments weighing about 157 grams.

8. Thereafter, the complainant and his daughter were taken to his jewellery shop, where approximately 3.6 kilograms of gold ornaments, along with cheque books, were seized. The complainant was thereafter illegally detained at the police station. During his detention, he was allegedly threatened with arrest and taken to the Government Hospital for medical examination. 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 9. According to the complainant, the Inspector of Police suggested that the dispute with the accused could be settled by executing documents relating to his immovable property. The complainant owned about 50 acres of agricultural land at Mallakuzhi Thazhavadi Village, Erode District, which had been mortgaged with Axis Bank for a sum of Rs.1 crore. 10. The Inspector allegedly calculated the value of the seized gold and cash and informed the complainant that, even after adjustment, he was liable to return 3.642 kilograms of gold together with interest. 11. It is further alleged that, under the coercion of the accused/Inspector of Police, the complainant was compelled to execute an agreement for sale in favour of the accused after the latter cleared the bank mortgage. The complainant was also forced to sign blank stamp papers, other documents prepared at the police station and several signed cheques as security. 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 12. The property stands jointly in the names of the complainant and his wife. Consequently, another agreement was also prepared and their signatures were obtained under coercion. In order to secure release of the original title deeds from the bank, the accused paid a sum of Rs.1,06,92,976.60 towards discharge of the mortgage loan. According to the complainant, the market value of the property exceeds Rs.15 crores. Crime No.2 of 2026 13. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was a Builder and Developer by profession. While being so, on 12.09.2024, seven persons, who were later identified as police officials, forcibly entered into the complainant's residence. Five of them were in police uniform while two were in civil dress. They entered the premises without prior notice or permission. 14. The complainant was forcibly taken to the police station and questioned regarding the accused/petitioner. During the enquiry, he stated that the accused was a stranger to him and that he had no acquaintance or business relationship with him. 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

15. The Inspector of Police, one Selvakumar, informed the complainant that the accused had alleged that the complainant had received 1,250 grams of gold in the year 2017 and directed him to return the same to the accused/petitioner. It was further stated that he would be released only upon returning the gold. 16. Although the complainant denied having received any gold from the accused/petitioner, the Inspector allegedly refused to accept his explanation and threatened him with arrest unless he returns 1,250 grams of gold. 17. The complainant was allegedly wrongfully confined at the police station till about 3.00 p.m. without food and his regular medicines for his heart ailment. Being under severe coercion and apprehending arrest, he arranged 1,200 grams of gold through his friend and handed it over to the accused. No acknowledgment was issued for the same, and he was released only at about 4.00 p.m. 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 18. The complainant further alleged that the accused/petitioner , in collusion with the police officials, made false allegations, threatened him with arrest and extorted 1,200 grams of gold. WP (Crl.) No.1553 of 2025

19. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the business of selling gold jewellery and wholesale trading in pure gold. The fourth respondent requested him to provide 10 kilograms of gold, assuring that double the quantity would be returned within three years for business purposes. 20. Believing the said representation, the petitioner handed over 7,400 grams of gold on 14.08.2021 at the office of the fourth respondent in the presence of his staff members, R. Visalatchi and R. Sudha. 21. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent was not operating any gold chain manufacturing unit under the name "BV Chains" as represented. 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 22. Despite repeated demands, the fourth respondent failed to return the gold. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.110 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. 23. During the course of investigation, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.05.2024, followed by an agreement for sale. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,06,92,907/- through cheques dated 02.09.2024 and 09.09.2024 for discharge of the mortgage loan over the property. WP (Crl.) No.1565 of 2025

24. The petitioner states that he is engaged in the business of selling gold jewellery and wholesale trading in pure gold. According to him, he entrusted 1.250 kilograms of pure gold to the fourth respondent upon the latter's assurance that he would execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner as security. However, the promise was never fulfilled. 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 25. Despite repeated demands, the fourth respondent failed to return the gold. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.200 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) IPC. 26. On 12.09.2024, the petitioner was summoned for enquiry before the second respondent police. During the enquiry, negotiations took place, pursuant to which the fourth respondent agreed to return one kilogram of gold immediately and the balance at a later stage. 27. The fourth respondents in WP (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 had earlier filed W.P. Nos.33515 and 32620 of 2024 seeking transfer of investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai. Both the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on 25.03.2025 holding that no grounds existed for transfer of investigation. 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

28. Subsequently, the fourth respondents filed W.P. Nos.12318 and 12322 of 2025, representing that the investigations were pending on the file of the first respondent, and sought a direction for early completion of investigation. By order dated 04.04.2025, this Court directed the first respondent to complete the investigation under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police. 29.It is alleged that the complainants had incorrectly stated that the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent, whereas they were actually pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Therefore, the accused filed W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025 seeking recall of the said order. 30. In the recall petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the investigations had already been transferred to the Inspector of Police, CCB, Coimbatore City, and that the investigations had substantially been completed. Consequently, the recall petitions were dismissed on 31.07.2025. 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 31. According to the petitioner, taking advantage of the dismissal of the recall petitions, the complainants, in collusion with certain police officials, ensured that Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 were closed as "mistake of fact". Hence, the present Writ Petitions.

32. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that the petitioner had been acquainted with the fourth respondents, namely, Balavenkatesh and B. Somasundaram, for several years. He further submits that the complainant, Balavenkatesh, in Crime No.1 of 2026, along with his wife, represented that they were operating a new gold chain manufacturing unit under the name "BV Chains" and requested the petitioner/accused to provide 10 kilograms of gold, assuring that they would return double the quantity within a period of three years. Believing the said representation, the petitioner/accused handed over 7,400 grams of gold to the complainant on 14.08.2021 in the presence of witnesses. 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 33. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused came to know that the complainant was not operating any gold chain manufacturing unit in the name of "BV Chains". Despite repeated demands for the return of the gold, the fourth respondent failed to return the same. Consequently, the petitioner lodged a complaint, which came to be registered as Crime No.110 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore.

34. During the course of investigation, the parties entered into an amicable settlement by executing a Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.05.2024, followed by an Agreement for Sale. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner/accused paid a sum of Rs.1,06,93,907/- towards discharge of the mortgage created by the complainant over the property with Axis Bank. 35. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner/accused also lodged another complaint against B. Somasundaram before the very same police station, namely, the 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. On receipt of the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.200 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) of the IPC. 36. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that both the complainants filed Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.33515 and 32620 of 2024 seeking transfer of the investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). By a common order dated 25.03.2025, this Court dismissed both the writ petitions. 37. Thereafter, the complainants once again filed W.P.

Nos.12318 and 12322 of 2025 by falsely representing that both the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent and sought a direction for completion of the investigation. By order dated 04.04.2025, this Court directed the first respondent to complete the investigation under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police. 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 38. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the complainants had wrongly stated that both the cases were pending on the file of the first respondent, whereas they were actually pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Consequently, the petitioner/accused filed W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025 seeking recall of the said order. 39. In the said recall petitions, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, had already transferred the investigation in both the cases to the Inspector of Police, CCB-I, Coimbatore City, and that the investigation had been completed and the final reports were ready to be filed. However, by order dated 31.07.2025, this Court dismissed the recall petitions. 40. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the recall petitions, both the complainants, in collusion with certain police officials, allegedly ensured that the FIRs in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 were closed as "Mistake of Fact." 18/30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 41. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the orders dismissing the recall petitions were challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the challenge and confirmed the orders passed by this Court in W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025. 42. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the first respondent ultimately filed closure reports in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 classifying both the cases as "Mistake of Fact." Hence, he prays that all the Criminal Original Petitions and Writ Petitions be allowed. 43. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the first respondent police in Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025, has filed separate counter affidavits. He reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the FIRs cannot be quashed at the preliminary stage of investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed the petitions. 19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

44. Mr. Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in Crl.O.P. No.6226 of 2026 and the fourth respondent in W.P. (Crl.) No.1553 of 2025, and Mr. V. Karthick, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. A. Sathasivam, learned counsel for the second respondent in Crl.O.P. No.6296 of 2026 and the fourth respondent in W.P. (Crl.) No.1565 of 2025, reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed the petitions. 45. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 46. A perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent in Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026, as well as the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, reveals that the accused in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 had initially lodged complaints against the present complainants. The said complaints were registered as Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024 on the file of the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. Upon completion of the investigation, both the FIRs were closed as 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 "Mistake of Fact." Aggrieved by the closure of the said FIRs, the accused filed the present Writ Petitions seeking re-investigation into both the cases.

47. During the investigation of the complaints lodged by the present complainants, the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, registered FIRs in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2025 against the accused herein. Subsequently, pursuant to the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, both the FIRs were transferred to the file of the first respondent/CBCID and re-registered as Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026. 48. The first respondent has further stated that, during the investigation in Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024, none of the witnesses supported the allegations made by the accused. There was neither oral nor documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations levelled against the complainants. Consequently, both the FIRs were closed as "Mistake of Fact." 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 49. It is further stated that the complaint in Crime No.200 of 2024 was initially lodged by the accused against one K. Somasundaram @ Somu, who had stood as a surety and had passed away in the year 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner/accused lodged a false complaint against the present complainant, which ultimately resulted in the registration of Crime No.2 of 2026. It is further alleged that, under coercion, the accused obtained 1,200 grams of gold from the complainant by misusing his official position as an Inspector of Police.

50. Therefore, according to the first respondent, there are absolutely no grounds to order re-investigation into Crime Nos.110 and 200 of 2024, which have already been closed as "Mistake of Fact." Hence, this Court finds no reason to direct a re-investigation into the said crimes. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate protest petitions challenging the closure reports, in the manner known to law, if so advised. 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 51. It is further stated that, in the recall petitions filed by the accused in W.M.P. Nos.207 and 208 of 2025, it was specifically brought to the notice of this Court that the Inspector of Police, D2 Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore, had transferred the investigation in both the cases to CCB-I, Coimbatore City, on 10.06.2025. After completion of the investigation, both the FIRs were closed as "Mistake of Fact", and RCS Notices Nos.336 and 337 of 2025 were served on the petitioner. In fact, the RCS proceedings are pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, and the petitioner has been called upon to file his objections. Therefore, both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed.

52. It is further submitted that, on receipt of the complaints lodged by the complainants, FIRs in Crime Nos.32 and 33 of 2025 were registered and, thereafter, transferred to the file of the first respondent/CBCID. On receipt of the records, the first respondent re-registered the cases as Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026, and both the FIRs are presently under investigation. 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 53. A perusal of the allegations contained in the FIRs discloses serious accusations against the accused. According to the prosecution, the accused had initially lodged false complaints against the complainants, which, upon detailed investigation, were closed as "Mistake of Fact." It is further alleged that the accused, by coercion, obtained gold from both the complainants and, in order to usurp their properties, compelled them to execute a Memorandum of Understanding and Agreements for Sale. It is also alleged that the accused obtained their signatures on blank papers, stamp papers and signed cheques.

54. It is seen from the First Information Report that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to attract the offence, which has to be investigated in depth. Further the FIR is not an encyclopedia and it need not contain all facts and it cannot be quashed in the threshold. This Court finds that the FIR discloses prima facie commission of cognizable offence and as such this Court cannot interfere with the investigation. The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code. 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

55. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the judgment reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350 in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors., (Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 ) held that the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance and summoning, is required to apply his judicial mind only with the view to taking cognizance of the offence whether a prima facie case has been made out for summoning the accused person. The learned Magistrate is not required to evaluate the merits of the materials or evidence in support of the complaint, because the Magistrate must not undertake the exercise to find out whether the materials would lead to conviction or not. Only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, the complaint/FIR can be taken for consideration for quashment. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate, it can be considered for quashment. Therefore, it is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of the case should be done before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 consideration of the allegations therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed, there would be no justification to interfere. At the initial stage of issuance of process, it is no open to the Court to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Therefore, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 56. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India issued directions in the judgment reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 315 in the case of M/s.Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., as follows :- “23. .................... vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule; .............. xii) The first information report is not an 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; ............. xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR; .......” 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025

57. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Reports. However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime Nos.1 and 2 of 2026, respectively, and file the final reports before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if not already filed, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 58. In the result: (i) Crl.O.P. Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 are dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed; and (ii) W.P. (Crl.) Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 23.07.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order Vv 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 To 1. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, Sathy Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore -641 012. 2. Inspector of Police, CCB-1, Coimbatore. 3. The Inspector of Police, D2, Selvapurram Police Station, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 4. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Coimbatore, 5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court 29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP Crl Nos.1553 and 1565 of 2025 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. Vv Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.O.P.Nos.6226 and 6296 of 2026 and WP.Crl.No.1553 and 1565 of 2025 23.07.2026 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis